Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".


A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

TBC and to deal with New Testament etc separately.



*NB I am using the expression "The Catholic Church" (with the capitals) in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church tends to claim nowadays or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense.

Continuation 1

Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The New Testament

In fairness, this one is a bit complicated and care needs to be taken when trying to identify who "compiled" it.

Today, in the West, both Roman Catholics and "Protestants" accept 27 books as books of the New Testament. There have always been other books written in the Christian era which have not been accepted into the present New Testament -- which again is same for both Roman Catholics and "Protestants".


1. Authorship of New Testament Books

The authors are believed to be the apostles of Jesus Christ or people connected or associated with them. The authors were not members of the Roman Catholic Church or even of "The Catholic Church". Therefore any claim by Roman Catholics that they "wrote" the New Testament is patently false and a blatant lie.


2. Date of Writing and the Issue of "Compilation"

These 27 books are widely believed to have been written by 100-110 AD (though some scholars argue slightly later for some books). See an example of claimed timelines here http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ and a second example here http://www.newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

We know from the Bible itself that some of the books of the New Testament were already in circulation among the early Christian Communities e.g. 2 Peter 3: 15-17; Colossians 4:16 etc. In fact, it is believed that even in the apostolic era some of Paul's letters were already circulating as a collection. In other words, they were already "compiled"!

Furthermore, it is also known that some of the New Testament books were in circulation, if not indeed wide circulation among early Christians by AD 100. There is clear proof of this: letters by Clement of Rome in 97 AD, Ignatius of Antioch in c. 107 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna, close to that time as well, all quote from the books of the New Testament and, between them, these three letters quote from almost all 27 books of present New Testament.

Obviously, the books were written and also the books were already being "compiled" that early on. They were already being "compiled" before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church"!

Now, the complication is (a) that there was considerable debate and even doubt as to whether to accept some books as 'canonical' even including some of the books in the present New Testament; and (b) that eventually some extant books were rejected as not being 'canonical'; some were wholly rejected; some were seen as very useful even though not 'canonical' - two examples being The Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas.

Now how were some rejected and others accepted: it was by certain recognitions and practices of various church communities and respected early Christians (sometimes being believed to be students of the apostles). Very early on, again even before the era of "The Catholic Church", most churches in different places had recognised and accepted the four gospels of today and the same is said of most of Paul's letters. In fact, it is claimed that in 1 Timothy 5:18 even Paul himself quotes Luke's gospel (Luke 10:7) as "scripture"! It is similarly claimed that when Peter referred to Paul's letters, he was referring to them as "scriptures". So, already, we can say we have very good guides about the status of some books already.

About others, as noted earlier, very soon there was consensus from practices of the churches and of respected early Christians on some books as accepted, on some as disputed, and on some as rejected. Nevertheless, by the time of the Muratorian Canon (c.170-180 AD) and of Origen in early 200s AD, we already had the 27 book NT canon largely taking shape. Note that at this point, this was before the era when "The Catholic Church" had become exclusive and at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!

In AD 367, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books of today's New Testament as the books that make up the canon of the New Testament. This was before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church". It was also before the decree of Theodosius appropriating the word "Catholic" though, in fairness, by then some, e.g. Cyril as mentioned earlier of Jerusalem, had already started to use the word "Catholic" in a sense to exclude others --- considering especially that this was after Nicea. Again, nevertheless it was at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!


TBC



*(Again NB I am using "The Catholic Church" in the sense that Roman Catholics tend to claim today or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense)

Continuation 2

Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. From catholic to "Catholic"!

In the earliest days of the community of Christians and at the time of writing and initial "compilation" of the New Testament, there was NO such thing as the Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church". At that time the specific word "catholic" whether in the small letter catholic as an adjective or in the capital letter "Catholic" as a noun had not been used in relation to the Christian Church at all.

At that time the Church was simply "the Church" i.e. "ekklesia", the "called out", the "separate"! Simples!

That the Church, singular, existed in various locations is depicted in the Bible with such usages as "the Church in Ephesus", "the Church at Corinth", "the Church that meets in your/their house" etc etc.

It was at that time just "the Church", i.e. what Jesus called "My Church" and thus is also known as "the Church of Christ" or as "the Christian Church".

It was circa 110 AD that the word "catholic" was first used in relation to "the Church" by Ignatius of Antioch --- and he was not a Roman Catholic! He did this in a letter. A reading of that letter indicates that he used the word "catholic" in its sense as an adjective, in relation to or qualifying "church", and not as a noun ('he katholike ekklesia'). There was NO such thing as "The Catholic Church" let alone Roman Catholic Church at this time!

Ignatius used the word catholic to mean "universal" and by "catholic church" he meant primarily "universal church"! Each local church under its "bishop" was part of a "whole", part of the universal (i.e. 'catholic') Church. Of course, the Bible has always indicated that the Church is one.

True, that later on (arguably much later on) some started to use the word "catholic" in relation to the Church to make distinctions; in particular, to separate themselves from other people also claiming to be Christians but who had some different beliefs and practices. This is much more noticeable in the 4th century (much much later on from when Ignatius first used the word) in the works of people like Cyril of Jerusalem. The culmination of this was the Edict of Thessalonica in AD 380 issued by Emperor Theodosius by which it was declared essentially that only Trinitarians were entitled to use the word "Catholic". Legally, this is when we can start to speak of "The Catholic Church"; strictly not even from Constantine and Edict of Milan which basically made sure that Christianity generally was now permitted and tolerated at law. Even then, this (enactment of either Milan or Thessalonica Edicts) did not mean or refer to the Roman Catholic Church. By this time anyway, Constantinople was already a major rival to Rome with some of its bishops even flexing muscles against other bishops including the then bishops of Rome; (this is partly what led Gregory I to write that letter saying anyone claiming to be 'universal bishop' was basically playing anti-Christ; someone please tell modern Roman Catholics!)

At this time, "The Catholic Church" consisted of Churches belonging to or associated with 4/5 primary Sees: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Note that even at this stage, strictly speaking there still was no such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church". An interesting side bit: in a letter (Letter 44, I believe), Augustine of Hippo did not even feel it sufficient to leave it to assumption that the Bishop of Rome was a "Catholic"; he felt it necessary to mention it specifically: as in "X, bishop of Rome, himself a Catholic"!

In circa 1054, the Church of Rome which was the "Western Church" separated from the other Churches, the Eastern Church or Eastern Churches, in what is known as the Great Schism. With this Great Schism, that which was the erstwhile "The Catholic Church" became defunct! A number of factors were responsible for the Great Schism but one of them was that the other Churches rejected claims by the Church of Rome to have power over the other Churches.

On one view, this is when the Church of Rome together with 'subordinate' churches in the Western world who accepted its "powers" became what was later to be expressly called "the Roman Catholic Church". In the proper adjectival sense of the word "catholic", the expression "Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron because once the Church was broken and no longer one, it was no longer strictly catholic visibly. However, in the sense of use as a noun phrase the expression "the Roman Catholic Church" is understandable. However, strictly it was not till some 500 years later that this "Western Church" was called "the Roman Catholic Church". At this stage it was either the Church of Rome, the Roman Church, or the Western Church though it might have claimed to have been the continuation of the really now defunct "The Catholic Church".

As for the "Churches of the East" they became what we know generally as the Eastern Orthodox Church and they called themselves the "Orthodox Catholic Church". Again, in the proper adjectival sense of the word "catholic", the expression "Orthodox Catholic Church" is an oxymoron because once the Church was broken and no longer one, it was no longer strictly catholic visibly. But again in the sense of use as a noun phrase, "Orthodox Catholic" is understandable. They use the word "orthodox" to claim that they are the ones who truly represent continuity with the now defunct "The Catholic Church" and that they are the ones who truly keep to its "orthodoxy".

And this is why today we have two organisations laying claim to the word "Catholic" in noun form: "the Orthodox Catholic Church "on the one hand and "the Roman Catholic Church" on the other.


TBC




Next back to the small letter catholic i.e. back to catholic in the adjectival sense.

*yanws*

smh.....wth

Continuation 3


Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The Road Back Towards catholic as an Adjective!

As noted previously, Theodosius' Edict of Thessalonica marked the legal entitlement for a Church to claim to be "Catholic"; in other words to be part of "The Catholic Church". According to that edict, the primary qualification to be called "Catholic" essentially was adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity.

As noted earlier also, even prior to that, some had already started to use the expression so as to exclude some others who also claimed to be Christian but who held to some different beliefs; notable among such beliefs was Arianism. The Arian controversy of course eventually reached a head with the Council of Nicea held 325 AD which condemned Arianism (and also Docetism). In addition a Council was held in Constantinople AD 381 which confirmed the Creed accepted at Nicea and added confirmation of the acceptance of the Holy Spirit also as God; this was presided over by the Partriarch of Alexandria. Thus the "Trinity" issue was settled. Or was it?

Anyway, in the wake of the earlier Council of Nicea, some were already, even before Theodosius' edict, using the expression "The Catholic Church" to exclude especially Arians. Meanwhile, it is to be noted that Arius and the Arians were originally part of the group which now seeks to exclude them from the club and which now lays exclusive claim to "The Catholic Church". Notable people who used the expression "The Catholic Church" in this way include Cyril of Jerusalem, as mentioned previously, and also Augustine of Hippo. With the advent of Theodosius' Edict, this position became even more strengthened. But of course the Arians continued to see themselves as Christians and called themselves so.

To make things even spicier, there were other Christians who believed in "The Trinity" but did not adhere to "the classic version" of 'The Trinity' advocated by the majority. At this stage of course, they were technically still part of "The Catholic Church". Funny, there are at least two forms of this "non-classic Trinity" positions.

On one extreme, you have what came to be called Nestorianism i.e. the view of those Christians who (roughly) emphasised the separation of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ. The rest of "The Catholic Church" condemned Nestorianism at the Council of Ephesus (more or less Turkey) in 431 AD. Interestingly, the chief antagonist of Nestorianism was the Partriarch of Alexandria. Another interesting thing about this Council was that it was the one that declared the "Theotokos" i.e. Mary as "God-bearer" (or "Mother of God" if you like) - the Nestorians' preferred "Christokos" i.e "Mother of Christ". Anyway, the Nestorians of course continued to see themselves as Christians and went to form their own churches especially in the "East" - places like Persia up to China and India!

On the other extreme, you had those who emphasised the merging of the human and divine natures of Christ. They came to be called non-Chalcedonians or "monophysites" though they prefer to call themselves "miaphysites" apparently. And guess what, these miaphysites were from Alexandria; so it was the turn of the Alexandrians to feel the heat from the rest of "The Catholic Church". Anyway, the opposing view of the rest of "The Catholic Church" came to be known as the "dyophysite" view. It is also known as the Chalcedonian view because a council was called at Chalcedon (again, more or less Turkey) in 451 to deal with the matter which settled in favour of the "dyophysite" view and the "Hypostatic Union".

An additional problem in this case was that the Alexandrians themselves were divided and after the decisions of the quite messy affair of the Chalcedon Council, the Alexandrian Church broke into two. One part went on to form the "Oriental Orthodox Church" (including the Coptic, Syriac, the Ethiopean/Eritrean Tewahedo Churches etc). The other part opted to accept the Chalcedonian view and thus remain with the rest of "The Catholic Church" --- although in the Great Schism much later on they were to go with the Eastern Orthodox/Orthodox Catholic Church and end up in schism with the Roman Catholic Church.

And so, leaving out all sorts of skirmishes, eventually "The Catholic Church" faced its ultimate crisis with the Great Schism. This schism was caused by many factors; some doctrinal, like the 'Filioque controversy', others seriously political. On the political front, the Church of Rome kept trying, especially from the 4th century onwards, to claim some power over the other Churches; those ones disagreed. To make matters worse, the 'youngest' of the five main Churches i.e. Constantinople was given a rather elevated status: called New Rome and only second to Rome at Council of Constantinople mentioned earlier; "somewhat declared equal to Rome" with the controversial Canon 28 of the Chalcedon Council!

Anyway to cut long story short, the Western Part of "The Catholic Church" i.e. the Roman Church (with essentially the rest of Western Europe) and the Eastern parts of "The Catholic Church", basically i.e. the rest, separated from each other from about 1054 onwards.

Thus, "The Catholic Church" as known for hundreds of years before became kaput! Strictly speaking, that "The Catholic Church" can be said to have then become defunct --- although of course both sides still claim to be its continuation.


TBC

Educating, big bro.

Enigma dey vex.

Lol.

^^^ lol

Interestingly, that is partly correct. I had no plans whatsoever to do this thread or to write anything anywhere near as extensive as this but really just to make the point in the first post above. However, as you know from the thread and posts that led to this thread, I was being accused of this that and the other and I started to write what I thought would be a short post ...... the rest is history.

Ihedinobi: Educating, big bro.

Thanks oh; just found myself larking about with this after returning from "ecclessial community" today.

Great write-up bro!

Thanks bros; hopefully tomorrow, I will conclude it with the final catholic part.

Continuation 4


Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Finally Back to catholic --- the adjective

(Intended to be brief but ..........)

After "The Catholic Church", strictly speaking, became defunct following the Great Schism, the Church of Rome or the Roman Church dominated the western world and was basically head of churches in the West (generally, but with some exceptions); for a long time it even dominated state governments too!

Partly because the Roman Church became so powerful, corruption set in and it started doing some very bad things both on matters of church doctrine and practice and on political and economic matters. On matters of church doctrine and practice (which is our business here), some people started questioning the position of the Church of Rome. An important early example would be John Wycliffe who was one of the earliest people to lead a translation of the Bible into English.

Anyway, to cut tori short, eventually in the early 16th century Martin Luther challenged some teachings and practices of the Church of Rome. This led to a period and process of "reformation" when many Christians in many parts of Europe eventually broke away from the Roman Church. The case of England is unique: already there were Christians sympathetic to the European reformers; on the other hand Henry VIII was breaking the Church of England away from the Church of Rome, and especially from the power and authority of the pope, partly because of his intention to divorce/annul his marriage. These two forces led to the unique "English Reformation" which was thus technically different from the main "Protestant Reformation".

All these were going on throughout the 16th century, and in England especially there were some "serious political battles" between those who supported reformation and those who wanted to remain loyal to the pope and the Church of Rome. Eventually, the reformation succeeded and the Church of England (or as later known "Anglican Church" now extended to global 'Anglican Communion') became autonomous and independent of the Church of Rome.

Ah it was during/after all of these that the term "Roman Catholic" was adopted in the early 17th century and used for the Church of Rome to stress that the Church of Rome is not "The Catholic Church" or for that matter the catholic Church. Although the term "Roman Catholic" was not coined by the Church of Rome itself, it also used that term for itself in documents around that time and has done so in other documents since - even until the present day. Note that it has also often called itself "the Roman Church"; one of the most recent public examples of this was the announcement of then Cardinal Bergoglio as the incoming new pope.

Now, the European reformers in particular saw themselves as "evangelical" i.e. they claimed to be devoted to the true gospel. They also attached great importance to the authority of the Bible and believed that the Roman Catholic Church had departed from many of the true teachings of the Bible. In this respect, the part that concerns us is their attitude to the fact that the Bible says that the Church is one.

In the belief that the church is one, is the recognition that the Church is universal. Now, it is useful to remember that when Ignatius originally used the word "catholic" for the Church, he used it as meaning "universal" as in the adjectival expression, "the catholic Church", meaning "the universal Church".

The problem for the reformers was that in the meantime the original adjectival word "catholic" in relation to the Church had for long been appropriated and used as part of the noun phrase "The Catholic Church", as has been explained earlier. Again, as had been explained earlier, after "The Catholic Church", strictly speaking, became defunct, two organisations were still claiming the noun form of the word "Catholic". One was the Eastern Orthodox; the other was the Church of Rome ---- the very one from which the reformers were breaking away!

Now, the reformers advocated a return to the original intended meaning and usage of the word "catholic" - as an adjective; as simply meaning "universal"; as an adjective to say the Church is "universal"; as an adjective to say the Church is one - as the Bible had always said!

But of course, things are not that easy or straightforward! Two major problems: first, how do you deal with the fact that some organisations are already claiming the word "Catholic"? Second, how can you now really say that the Church is one? How do you face the fact that all these Churches are fighting with one another? When even you have just broken away from one Church, i.e. from the Church of Rome? When the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox had fought and thereby broken up "The Catholic Church"? When even in the days that there was still "The Catholic Church", it had itself kicked out some other Churches? When "The Catholic Church", even before it became defunct, existed alongside others claiming to be Christian Churches even within the then Roman Empire? When there were always some Churches in other places outside the Roman Empire that existed at the same time as "The Catholic Church"?

How do you solve these? Easy peasy?

To problem 1: simply leave those claiming the capitalised noun form of "Catholic" to be claiming it --- since you know they are "deceiving themselves". Re-emphasise the original meaning of the word catholic with small letter 'c'; as an adjective; as simply meaning universal; as simply always intended to say just simply that the Church is universal and one. That it was never really intended to be the name of a Church or of the Church.

To be fair and serious for a minute: this argument has strong foundation and support both from the Bible and from history. That the Church is supposed to be one and universal is undeniable. Even those claiming the word "Catholic" as proprietary in noun form do not deny this. Very importantly, even those claiming the word "Catholic" as proprietary in noun form had historically always admitted that the word 'catholic' with small 'c' is to be used to denote that the Church is "universal"! Simply look in the Nicene Creed of 325 (and the 'later' Apostles' Creed) speaking of "one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church"!

In fact, both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church admit up till today that the word "catholic" has and has always had this meaning as an adjective, as simply "universal" and thus that "catholic Church" is very much supposed to mean "universal Church". Just look in the Catechism and/or other constitutional documents of each one of them!

What about the second problem that there is a proliferation of "Churches" then? Arguably, this is the more difficult problem. Well, the reformers did not claim to be "evangelical" for nothing! They of course remembered that Jesus said 'let the wheat and tares grow together', that the apostles warned in various places that corrupt people and corrupting things and influences will infiltrate the Church. Accordingly, they emphasised the invisible nature of the true Church while not denying the visible aspect of the Church. A classic example of how they express the matter is the below:

Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646!

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Church.

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

VI. {deleted by Enigma because it is inflammatory}.

I really do love this thread.

E-ninja I mean Enigma, did one catholic market woman sell you a sack of garri with too much sand in it?

My objections are as follows:

1. Contrary to your definition of Canon and Canon of the Bible, you didn't show any resolution of the Church to adopt a Canon, according to what you wrote out, it seems a canon is more or less a parcel of tradition not thought through.

The canons you talked about were ambiguous, we weren't enlightened as to whether the whole community of christians accepted the purported canons or its the writers' opinions. What collection of paul's letters? Is it all the letters? what proof do you have for that? The purported Scripture you quoted (luke 10:7) had just one similar sentence with 1 timothy, which isn't impressive.

2. Why are we to ignore the resolutions of the African Synods if its doctrinal texts/bases can't be made in the name of the Universal Church? Isn't it inconsistent to accept Councils held in Turkey and Egypt but condemn African meetings as mere regional/inconsquential loud reflections? If such Synods are regional, its reasonable to believe they are a diff church frm the universal church; in effect pronouncing the universal church dead.

3. At last you have made yourself clear about the catholic, the Catholic and Roman Catholic churches. At the point where the Arians and Gnostics were thrown out of the Church, did the Church stop being a catholic Church?? Or the catholic Church encompassed the right/true Church?

4. Pls provide a detailed structure of the Catholic Church.

JeSoul: E-ninja I mean Enigma, did one catholic market woman sell you a sack of garri with too much sand in it?

From https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over#12310555

Enigma:

I agree with the bolded although it always depends on how one is using the expression "catholic church" and whether one is using it properly.

Actually, I had wanted to explore some of these issues and also that the use of the expression 'Roman Catholic Church' only started in about the 16th century (yep, that recent relatively speaking) in that thread on the RCC and the canon of the 'Bible' link provided below for reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

Kay 17: My objections are as follows:

1. Contrary to your definition of Canon and Canon of the Bible, you didn't show any resolution of the Church to adopt a Canon, according to what you wrote out, it seems a canon is more or less a parcel of tradition not thought through.

The canons you talked about were ambiguous, we weren't enlightened as to whether the whole community of christians accepted the purported canons or its the writers' opinions. What collection of paul's letters? Is it all the letters? what proof do you have for that? The purported Scripture you quoted (luke 10:7) had just one similar sentence with 1 timothy, which isn't impressive.

2. Why are we to ignore the resolutions of the African Synods if its doctrinal texts/bases can't be made in the name of the Universal Church? Isn't it inconsistent to accept Councils held in Turkey and Egypt but condemn African meetings as mere regional/inconsquential loud reflections? If such Synods are regional, its reasonable to believe they are a diff church frm the universal church; in effect pronouncing the universal church dead.

3. At last you have made yourself clear about the catholic, the Catholic and Roman Catholic churches. At the point where the Arians and Gnostics were thrown out of the Church, did the Church stop being a catholic Church?? Or the catholic Church encompassed the right/true Church?

4. Pls provide a detailed structure of the Catholic Church.

1. You still do not understand the biblical canon and need to read up on it; I have provided you (here and elsewhere) with waaay more than enough to start the learning and enquiry.

2. You do not understand the difference between an ecumenical council and a regional synod. If New York State, Vermont and Rhode Island decide together today to adopt Sharia law, it does not mean that the other states of the USA are adopting Sharia. (Edited)

3. Read my posts carefully, the matter was explained clearly enough.

4. No, I do not wish to "provide a detailed structure of the Catholic Church" beyond what I've written.

1. this is your definition of canon:

By "canon" in this sense is meant roughly "yardstick", "standard", or "definitive" (or perhaps "authoritative" as Wiki uses). In relation to the Bible and Christianity in any event, by canon is meant the collection of books ACCEPTED by a particular Christian community or particular sets of Christians as definitely "sacred" Scriptures or the collection of books accepted as definitely "inspired"

You defined the Bible similarly only that its acceptable generally by Christians. So you have to show us proof of positive acceptance of the earliest Canon by the Church! Vague references by authors isn't sufficient. The hallmark event wherein the foundation of christianity was confirmed, definitely has a date, so pls provide it to us mortals. Except you want to claim acceptance is traditional and customary.

2. The Synod of Hippo is a synod wherein bishops come together to discuss issues. Wiki says:

A synod historically is a council of a church, usually convened to decide an issue of doctrine, administration or application

The resolutions of the Synod stated categorically that themselves are subject to the approval of the Bishop of Rome (hence it is beyond a regional affair) and also a council of a Church (thus any decision thereof is a decision of the Church).

3. I have read it again and I didn't see the answer to my question.

4. It is very important so we can distinguish btw the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church

Kay 17:


You defined the Bible similarly only that its acceptable generally by Christians.[/quote So you have to show us proof of positive acceptance of the earliest Canon by the Church! Vague references by authors isn't sufficient. The hallmark event wherein the foundation of christianity was confirmed, definitely has a date, so pls provide it to us mortals. Except you want to claim acceptance is traditional and customary.

^^^

daft question i say. No?

Ok, using your word :

"you have to show us proof of positive acceptance of the earliest Canon" by the Jews therein they held ecumenical councils to add books and remove books over time befor those books of the OT cannon can be called "cannonised" books?

If those ^ books of the OT were passed along from generation to generation by men/people recognised as prophet, kings, judges etc anointed/appointed by God, then i dont know why that of christ apostles that christ said his father gave to him cannot do/be the same though they are Jews and must "need an ecumenical council" for theirs to be accepted as genuine/cannonised books even though christ accepted them as such.
..................................................

^
that is why i say your question is daft.

Those NT books simply followed same tradition, a writing not from those apostles of christ is not part of the NT books.

Same with the OT books, a writing from:

1. An appointed Yahweh prophet.
2. An anointed King of Israel by Yahweh.
2. A levite.

Anything out of it is error.

hehehehehe, interesting

Enigma: Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".

this is a joke at best!
its like saying when ubenedictus was one day old he was called 'baby' 3 days later he was named ubenedictus and the toys belonging to baby doesn't belong to ubenedictus.
the above is like saying that the christian church of 60ad is significantly different from the christian church of 100ad, simply becos the christian church of 100ad has been given a name.......
my dear please explain yourself.

A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

you are correct that the protocanonical and the deuterocanonical were not written by Christians or Catholics. the protocanons were largely accepted by the jews, but the same can't be said for the deuterocanon they were accepted by some jews and I'll be correct to say the christian church albeit the Catholic church added them or compiled them as scriptures for christians

TBC and to deal with New Testament etc separately.



*NB I am using the expression "The Catholic Church" (with the capitals) in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church tends to claim nowadays or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense.

it will be interesting if you define the theodosian sense and differentiate it from the 2nd century catholic church.

abundant peace of Christ Jesus

Enigma: Continuation 1

Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The New Testament

In fairness, this one is a bit complicated and care needs to be taken when trying to identify who "compiled" it.

Today, in the West, both Roman Catholics and "Protestants" accept 27 books as books of the New Testament. There have always been other books written in the Christian era which have not been accepted into the present New Testament -- which again is same for both Roman Catholics and "Protestants".


1. Authorship of New Testament Books

The authors are believed to be the apostles of Jesus Christ or people connected or associated with them. The authors were not members of the Roman Catholic Church or even of "The Catholic Church". Therefore any claim by Roman Catholics that they "wrote" the New Testament is patently false and a blatant lie.


2. Date of Writing and the Issue of "Compilation"

These 27 books are widely believed to have been written by 100-110 AD (though some scholars argue slightly later for some books). See an example of claimed timelines here http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ and a second example here http://www.newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

We know from the Bible itself that some of the books of the New Testament were already in circulation among the early Christian Communities e.g. 2 Peter 3: 15-17; Colossians 4:16 etc. In fact, it is believed that even in the apostolic era some of Paul's letters were already circulating as a collection. In other words, they were already "compiled"!

Furthermore, it is also known that some of the New Testament books were in circulation, if not indeed wide circulation among early Christians by AD 100. There is clear proof of this: letters by Clement of Rome in 97 AD, Ignatius of Antioch in c. 107 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna, close to that time as well, all quote from the books of the New Testament and, between them, these three letters quote from almost all 27 books of present New Testament.

Obviously, the books were written and also the books were already being "compiled" that early on. They were already being "compiled" before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church"!

Now, the complication is (a) that there was considerable debate and even doubt as to whether to accept some books as 'canonical' even including some of the books in the present New Testament; and (b) that eventually some extant books were rejected as not being 'canonical'; some were wholly rejected; some were seen as very useful even though not 'canonical' - two examples being The Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas.

Now how were some rejected and others accepted: it was by certain recognitions and practices of various church communities and respected early Christians (sometimes being believed to be students of the apostles). Very early on, again even before the era of "The Catholic Church", most churches in different places had recognised and accepted the four gospels of today and the same is said of most of Paul's letters. In fact, it is claimed that in 1 Timothy 5:18 even Paul himself quotes Luke's gospel (Luke 10:7) as "scripture"! It is similarly claimed that when Peter referred to Paul's letters, he was referring to them as "scriptures". So, already, we can say we have very good guides about the status of some books already.

About others, as noted earlier, very soon there was consensus from practices of the churches and of respected early Christians on some books as accepted, on some as disputed, and on some as rejected. Nevertheless, by the time of the Muratorian Canon (c.170-180 AD) and of Origen in early 200s AD, we already had the 27 book NT canon largely taking shape. Note that at this point, this was before the era when "The Catholic Church" had become exclusive and at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!

In AD 367, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books of today's New Testament as the books that make up the canon of the New Testament. This was before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church". It was also before the decree of Theodosius appropriating the word "Catholic" though, in fairness, by then some, e.g. Cyril as mentioned earlier of Jerusalem, had already started to use the word "Catholic" in a sense to exclude others --- considering especially that this was after Nicea. Again, nevertheless it was at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!


TBC



*(Again NB I am using "The Catholic Church" in the sense that Roman Catholics tend to claim today or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense)

I'm surprised you absolutely confused the stage of formation of the canon with the stage of setting the canon. did you do that on purpose to win points?

Enigma: Continuation 3


Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The Road Back Towards catholic as an Adjective!

As noted previously, Theodosius' Edict of Thessalonica marked the legal entitlement for a Church to claim to be "Catholic"; in other words to be part of "The Catholic Church". According to that edict, the primary qualification to be called "Catholic" essentially was adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity.

As noted earlier also, even prior to that, some had already started to use the expression so as to exclude some others who also claimed to be Christian but who held to some different beliefs; notable among such beliefs was Arianism. The Arian controversy of course eventually reached a head with the Council of Nicea held 325 AD which condemned Arianism (and also Docetism). In addition a Council was held in Constantinople AD 381 which confirmed the Creed accepted at Nicea and added confirmation of the acceptance of the Holy Spirit also as God; this was presided over by the Partriarch of Alexandria. Thus the "Trinity" issue was settled. Or was it?

Anyway, in the wake of the earlier Council of Nicea, some were already, even before Theodosius' edict, using the expression "The Catholic Church" to exclude especially Arians. Meanwhile, it is to be noted that Arius and the Arians were originally part of the group which now seeks to exclude them from the club and which now lays exclusive claim to "The Catholic Church". Notable people who used the expression "The Catholic Church" in this way include Cyril of Jerusalem, as mentioned previously, and also Augustine of Hippo. With the advent of Theodosius' Edict, this position became even more strengthened. But of course the Arians continued to see themselves as Christians and called themselves so.

Look at that!Oh how lovely, coming together in one faith;they protected the sheep from the wolves...Oh and they did it with authority. "It has pleased us and the Holy Spirit..." Acts15. What happens to those who refused to follow their counsel, Were they also led by the Holy Spirit?

To make things even spicier, there were other Christians who believed in "The Trinity" but did not adhere to "the classic version" of 'The Trinity' advocated by the majority. At this stage of course, they were technically still part of "The Catholic Church". Funny, there are at least two forms of this "non-classic Trinity" positions.

On one extreme, you have what came to be called Nestorianism i.e. the view of those Christians who (roughly) emphasised the separation of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ. The rest of "The Catholic Church" condemned Nestorianism at the Council of Ephesus (more or less Turkey) in 431 AD. Interestingly, the chief antagonist of Nestorianism was the Partriarch of Alexandria. Another interesting thing about this Council was that it was the one that declared the "Theotokos" i.e. Mary as "God-bearer" (or "Mother of God" if you like) - the Nestorians' preferred "Christokos" i.e "Mother of Christ". Anyway, the Nestorians of course continued to see themselves as Christians and went to form their own churches especially in the "East" - places like Persia up to China and India!

Why do I feel like shouting Alleluia here. Did you just say "Mother of God" in 431AD? Seriously? The majority of those who called themselves Christians acknowledged Mary as the Mother of God even before 431AD! I thought it was something concocted by one Pope.

On the other extreme, you had those who emphasised the merging of the human and divine natures of Christ. They came to be called non-Chalcedonians or "monophysites" though they prefer to call themselves "miaphysites" apparently. And guess what, these miaphysites were from Alexandria; so it was the turn of the Alexandrians to feel the heat from the rest of "The Catholic Church". Anyway, the opposing view of the rest of "The Catholic Church" came to be known as the "dyophysite" view. It is also known as the Chalcedonian view because a council was called at Chalcedon (again, more or less Turkey) in 451 to deal with the matter which settled in favour of the "dyophysite" view and the "Hypostatic Union".

An additional problem in this case was that the Alexandrians themselves were divided and after the decisions of the quite messy affair of the Chalcedon Council, the Alexandrian Church broke into two. One part went on to form the "Oriental Orthodox Church" (including the Coptic, Syriac, the Ethiopean/Eritrean Tewahedo Churches etc). The other part opted to accept the Chalcedonian view and thus remain with the rest of "The Catholic Church" --- although in the Great Schism much later on they were to go with the Eastern Orthodox/Orthodox Catholic Church and end up in schism with the Roman Catholic Church.

And so, leaving out all sorts of skirmishes, eventually "The Catholic Church" faced its ultimate crisis with the Great Schism. This schism was caused by many factors; some doctrinal, like the 'Filioque controversy', others seriously political. On the political front, the Church of Rome kept trying, especially from the 4th century onwards, to claim some power over the other Churches; those ones disagreed. To make matters worse, the 'youngest' of the five main Churches i.e. Constantinople was given a rather elevated status: called New Rome and only second to Rome at Council of Constantinople mentioned earlier; "somewhat declared equal to Rome" with the controversial Canon 28 of the Chalcedon Council!

Anyway to cut long story short, the Western Part of "The Catholic Church" i.e. the Roman Church (with essentially the rest of Western Europe) and the Eastern parts of "The Catholic Church", basically i.e. the rest, separated from each other from about 1054 onwards.

Thus, "The Catholic Church" as known for hundreds of years before became kaput! Strictly speaking, that "The Catholic Church" can be said to have then become defunct --- although of course both sides still claim to be its continuation.


TBC

Insightful and informative!

Did u come out from the catholic church?

@OP.AWARD WINNING! EXCELLENT!! .
I was certain its impossible that catholics compiled the bible all the while folks kept ranting here.How can they compile what they adamantly refuse to obey?

Beautifully done. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set u free. Christ quoted the old testaments in the synagogue and doing his 40days temptation. It was compiled in scrolls (bits of the old testaments) then and kept in the temple and wasn't by the Catholics.

I am happy that the catholic regulars avoided this thread.


See how some anti-catholic protestants are cheering the op because they are too lazy to do fact checking of a long article.


Read the whole luaghable article and you will see that there is not one difference between the catholic and roman catholic church that the op so vehemently claims.

The op fails at grammar so hard. Conflating the difference between the difference between the adjective form and the verb form of catholic with the (non)existent difference between the catholic and roman catholic church.


Lastly, the op also misinterprets the evolution of the catholic church as being two different churches just to say that the roman catholic church did not compile the bible.

Who then compiled the bible, sir? We all know that it was never a protestant church that did it, so you will never get any reasonable person o follow ypur false minstry.

In nomine patri et filis et sancti spiritus. Amen

This mass is ended, go in peace...Enigma.

Tgirl4real: Insightful and informative!

Did u come out from the catholic church?

let us just say I have strong Roman Catholic connections.

bizmahn: @OP.AWARD WINNING! EXCELLENT!! .
I was certain its impossible that catholics compiled the bible all the while folks kept ranting here.How can they compile what they adamantly refuse to obey?

The arguments of the Roman Catholic apologists that "they" "compiled" the Bible are based on falsehoods, misrepresentations and deliberate propaganda. I'm sorry to say that the propaganda even includes entries in Wikipedia and people should judge carefully when they read about Roman Catholicism in places like that. One would need to look beyond not so rigorous sources like Wikipedia.

Anyway here is a couple more helpful threads:

Short thread with short posts and quick to a number of significant points: https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Longer with arguments from different sides: https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

Logicboy03: ...

This mass is ended, go in peace...Enigma.

Thanks be to God!

And thank you ... in the name of Christ, Amen!

Meanwhile, go and learn the difference between "verb", noun and adjective.

Logicboy03: I am happy that the catholic regulars avoided this thread.
See how some anti-catholic protestants are cheering the op because they are too lazy to do fact checking of a long article.
Read the whole luaghable article and you will see that there is not one difference between the catholic and roman catholic church that the op so vehemently claims.
The op fails at grammar so hard. Conflating the difference between the difference between the adjective form and the verb form of catholic with the (non)existent difference between the catholic and roman catholic church.
Lastly, the op also misinterprets the evolution of the catholic church as being two different churches just to say that the roman catholic church did not compile the bible.
Who then compiled the bible, sir? We all know that it was never a protestant church that did it, so you will never get any reasonable person o follow ypur false minstry.
In nomine patri et filis et sancti spiritus. Amen
This mass is ended, go in peace...Enigma.

it is usual, it is the natural anglican arguement. They confuse the development of the church in their heads. The long story above is like saying each time the name changed it means the church changed. It is illogical sematics. Enigma knows how to tell a story to those who want to hear a story.

Ubenedictus:
it is usual, it is the natural anglican arguement. They confuse the development of the church in their heads. The long story above is like saying each time the name changed it means the church changed. It is illogical sematics.

Nah, it's called debunking Roman Catholic propaganda and falsehoods ---- with real facts.

Ubenedictus: Enigma knows how to tell a story to those who want to hear a story.

Just like Roman Catholic apologists like to spread falsehoods and propaganda for those who want to hear falsehoods and propaganda?

Cool.

Enigma:

Thanks be to God!

And thank you ... in the name of Christ, Amen!

Meanwhile, go and learn the difference between "verb", noun and adjective.

Sorry, i clearly meant to say noun and adjective.


Doesnt change the false nature of your op